| lderan | knome, required vote count is a good idea, shall add it to the list :) | 08:37 |
|---|---|---|
| elfy | I thought so | 08:44 |
| knome | lderan, it might exist already... | 11:41 |
| lderan | will quickly check | 11:42 |
| elfy | it can be used in -meeting afaik - we were talking about it the other day in a meeting | 11:43 |
| elfy | that's the reason I knew and mentioned it yesterday :) | 11:44 |
| knome | #startmeeting | 11:44 |
| meetingology | Meeting started Sat May 17 11:44:09 2014 UTC. The chair is knome. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. | 11:44 |
| meetingology | Available commands: action commands idea info link nick | 11:44 |
| knome | #Vote tet | 11:44 |
| meetingology | Please vote on: tet | 11:44 |
| meetingology | Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname) | 11:44 |
| knome | #votesrequired 2 | 11:44 |
| meetingology | votes now need 2 to be passed | 11:44 |
| knome | +1 | 11:44 |
| meetingology | +1 received from knome | 11:44 |
| knome | #endvote | 11:44 |
| meetingology | Voting ended on: tet | 11:44 |
| meetingology | Votes for:1 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0 | 11:44 |
| meetingology | Motion denied | 11:44 |
| knome | heh | 11:44 |
| elfy | :) | 11:44 |
| lderan | :P | 11:44 |
| knome | well, denied isn't the right one either | 11:44 |
| knome | #endmeeting | 11:44 |
| meetingology | Meeting ended Sat May 17 11:44:41 2014 UTC. | 11:44 |
| meetingology | Minutes: http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/xubuntu-devel/2014/xubuntu-devel.2014-05-17-11.44.moin.txt | 11:44 |
| lderan | what should it say instead? required votes not reached? | 11:50 |
| knome | lderan, yeah, i guess | 11:53 |
| elfy | try it again - with 3 of us voting - one of each | 11:54 |
| elfy | that would be the right wording for only having one +1 | 11:54 |
| knome | elfy, #votesrequired means | 11:55 |
| knome | err | 11:55 |
| knome | it actually means that N votes for or against is needed | 11:55 |
| knome | so practically, | 11:55 |
| knome | it'd need 3 -1 votes to be denied | 11:55 |
| elfy | no real use in our scenario :p | 11:56 |
| knome | no | 11:56 |
| elfy | actually - we'd just set it to 8 I guess | 11:56 |
| knome | yep | 11:56 |
| knome | but if there was no +8 or -8 | 11:56 |
| knome | the bot would say "denied" | 11:56 |
| knome | which is wrong | 11:56 |
| elfy | it's right | 11:57 |
| elfy | the bot doesn'tr know about the mailing list :) | 11:57 |
| knome | it's not; there just isn't a decision yet | 11:57 |
| knome | sure | 11:57 |
| knome | but with +7, no vote is exactly "denied" either | 11:57 |
| elfy | would the bot use different wording here to elsewhere? | 11:57 |
| knome | it's just "not carried" | 11:57 |
| knome | it could use the same wording everywhere :) | 11:58 |
| elfy | then we shouldn't go changing the wording willy nilly :) | 11:58 |
| lderan | from the code if the vote reqauired was 4, and 4 people voted +1 and 4 people votes -1, it would actualy be carried | 11:58 |
| knome_web | huhu | 11:59 |
| elfy | lderan: lol | 11:59 |
| knome_web | actually, | 11:59 |
| lderan | might have to changed that slightly | 11:59 |
| knome_web | let's forget #votesrequired for a moment | 11:59 |
| elfy | :) | 11:59 |
| knome_web | what if there was a #quorum | 11:59 |
| knome_web | set that to 8 | 11:59 |
| elfy | good point | 11:59 |
| knome_web | and if no -8 or +8 happens, then it says "no quorum" | 11:59 |
| knome_web | actually, it'd have to be able to count +0 votes | 12:00 |
| elfy | it should count vote - not vote value I guess | 12:00 |
| knome_web | right | 12:00 |
| knome_web | yeah, that sounds correct | 12:01 |
| elfy | for quorum at least | 12:01 |
| knome_web | count the vote value, and if value is at least quorum, carry/deny | 12:01 |
| knome_web | if not, say no quorum | 12:01 |
| knome_web | (but nonetheless, output the votes) | 12:01 |
| knome_web | but... that's not how we always want it | 12:02 |
| elfy | there was a conversation about all this with the membership board on Thursday - quorum and vote value | 12:02 |
| knome_web | that's a fair case for regular votes | 12:02 |
| knome_web | well, hmm | 12:02 |
| knome_web | then just set quorum value to 14 :P | 12:02 |
| lderan | :P | 12:02 |
| elfy | it'd not work for them - they need the 'value' to be +4 | 12:03 |
| knome_web | yeah | 12:03 |
| elfy | anyway | 12:03 |
| knome_web | well that's why i was considering #quorum | 12:03 |
| knome_web | not changing the existing functionality | 12:03 |
| elfy | quorum would be useful - people don't have to use it | 12:03 |
| knome_web | because there clearly is use cases for that as well | 12:03 |
| knome_web | how would the bot handle the situation when both are set? | 12:04 |
| knome_web | #quorum 5 | 12:04 |
| knome_web | #votesrequired 2 | 12:04 |
| elfy | would need at least 3 +1's and 5 votes total? | 12:05 |
| knome_web | 2 +1's :P | 12:05 |
| knome_web | or 2 -1's | 12:05 |
| elfy | remove +0 | 12:05 |
| elfy | :) | 12:05 |
| lderan | poor +0 | 12:05 |
| elfy | no fences - too sharp :D | 12:05 |
| knome_web | i think it has some added value | 12:05 |
| knome_web | i mean, yeah, it definitely does | 12:06 |
| knome_web | it can help fill the quorum | 12:06 |
| knome_web | "i'm around, but don't want to vote either way2 | 12:06 |
| elfy | :) | 12:07 |
| knome_web | i'm thinking a very specific situation.. | 12:08 |
| knome_web | #quorum 8 | 12:08 |
| knome_web | 7 persons vote +0 | 12:08 |
| knome_web | 1 person votes +1 | 12:08 |
| knome_web | well, the bot says it's carried | 12:09 |
| knome_web | ;) | 12:09 |
| elfy | yea - which is an issue for lots of teams | 12:09 |
| knome_web | so... should #votesrequired always be quorum/2 when quorum is set? | 12:09 |
| lderan | can have it so it has to have a majority when used with quorum? | 12:09 |
| elfy | I'd argue that it's an issue for any team that isn't Ubuntu Mathematicians | 12:09 |
| knome_web | lderan: i guess yeah unless #votesrequired is explicitly set to something else | 12:10 |
| elfy | lderan: a value majority or a votes majority | 12:10 |
| knome_web | elfy: question.. does the membership team really need it like this: | 12:11 |
| knome_web | if one votes -1, practically five need to vote +1 ? | 12:11 |
| knome_web | or would it be fine if they knew that there was at least four +1's ? | 12:11 |
| elfy | yea - though they too - take things to m/l if needed - but I don't want to get into the specifics right now - I'm not really here lol | 12:12 |
| knome_web | ;) | 12:12 |
| elfy | I just sat down to roll a smoke lol | 12:12 |
| lderan | vote majority? so if 8 vote 0 and 1 votes +1 it would count it as not carried? 5 would need to vote +1 | 12:12 |
| elfy | mmm | 12:13 |
| elfy | hang on | 12:13 |
| knome_web | though | 12:13 |
| knome_web | the real question is: | 12:13 |
| knome_web | if quorum is 8, the real team size is 14/15 | 12:14 |
| knome_web | shouldn't the bot just understand that in the situation lderan pasted | 12:14 |
| knome_web | and say it needs more votes | 12:14 |
| knome_web | or should we actually not use #quorum | 12:14 |
| knome_web | but #voters | 12:14 |
| knome_web | which would be the maximum amount of people voting | 12:15 |
| knome_web | and quorum would be calculated from that | 12:15 |
| lderan | mmm | 12:15 |
| knome_web | then setting | 12:15 |
| knome_web | #voters 14 | 12:15 |
| knome_web | would practically work like the XPL voting | 12:16 |
| knome_web | but if it was a regular vote, and we knew there would be 6 people around, | 12:16 |
| knome_web | we could do | 12:16 |
| knome_web | #votesrequired 4 | 12:16 |
| knome_web | no, that doesn't work | 12:16 |
| knome_web | or does, but then #voters is useless | 12:17 |
| elfy | would it work if there was a 'voter' who could have a number set by chair - #voters is a list of names - but you might have 9 people away and then voting on m/l | 12:17 |
| elfy | so for example #voteexternal=9 | 12:17 |
| knome_web | #voters <nick> <nick> ... Set the qualified voters. Use '#voters all' to reset. | 12:18 |
| elfy | then you have #voters = those present | 12:18 |
| knome_web | or just assign everybody to it? | 12:18 |
| knome_web | and the bot knows how many are off because they didn't vote | 12:18 |
| elfy | knome_web: but would that work if elfy is in the list - but isn't in -devel when the vote takes places | 12:19 |
| elfy | does it not need the irc nick? | 12:19 |
| knome_web | it would work | 12:19 |
| knome_web | because it could just check if elfy voted | 12:19 |
| knome_web | whether elfy was around or not | 12:19 |
| elfy | ok | 12:20 |
| knome_web | so... | 12:21 |
| knome_web | what if we used that | 12:21 |
| knome_web | and then #quorum on/off | 12:21 |
| knome_web | is quorum is off, vote value within available people wins | 12:21 |
| elfy | logically sounds like it should work for us | 12:22 |
| knome_web | if it's off, vote amount wins if enough votes | 12:22 |
| knome_web | err,, | 12:22 |
| knome_web | if it's on :P | 12:22 |
| elfy | and quorum=voters/2+1 | 12:22 |
| knome_web | floor(voters/2)+1 | 12:23 |
| knome_web | but yeah. | 12:23 |
| lderan | cool | 12:25 |
| knome_web | btw, we need to be able to remove voters | 12:27 |
| knome_web | iirc, #voters just adds voters | 12:27 |
| knome_web | can't remove | 12:27 |
| knome_web | (except with #voters all) | 12:27 |
| elfy | why would you need to remove voters during a meeting? | 12:27 |
| knome_web | if we use a factoid that outputs #voters | 12:27 |
| knome_web | then knome suddenly has a "knome_web" nick | 12:28 |
| knome_web | and we don't want to break the quorum value | 12:28 |
| elfy | mmm yea | 12:28 |
| knome_web | then we need to remove knome and add knome_web | 12:28 |
| knome_web | (and if voters are removed, their votes should be removed too) | 12:31 |
| elfy | from current vote I assume | 12:34 |
| knome_web | yep | 12:34 |
| elfy | sounds good | 12:35 |
| ochosi | somehow i only receive a selection of the emails from the dev-mailinglist | 17:15 |
| ochosi | anyone else here having trouble with receiving the emails | 17:16 |
| elfy | ochosi: http://www.zimagez.com/zimage/screenshot-170514-181951.php | 17:20 |
| elfy | that's what I've received - what are you missing - they appear to match https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/xubuntu-devel/2014-May/thread.html | 17:21 |
| === GridCube_ is now known as GridCube | ||
| ochosi | elfy: yeah, didn't receive GridCube's and pleia2's message... | 18:48 |
| ochosi | very odd | 18:48 |
| ochosi | knome's i did receive | 18:48 |
| elfy | ochosi: perhaps the issue with your xfce mail address ? | 18:51 |
| ochosi | i dunno, i sent a testmail to myself today, that arrived normally | 18:57 |
| elfy | no idea I'm afraid | 18:59 |
| elfy | knome can't let go then - still XPL on his mail sig :D | 19:01 |
| ochosi | heh | 19:01 |
| ochosi | yeah | 19:01 |
| benonsoftware | /msg jose Hiyas | 23:32 |
| benonsoftware | Err. -.- | 23:32 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!